vastly different thought process

MolitorPhotography

TPF Noob!
Joined
Nov 20, 2014
Messages
34
Reaction score
12
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
I read quite a few articles throughout the week, and two that I read this week were interesting simply based on their juxtaposition of differing photographic mindsets. One written by a quasi professional and one by an admitted amateur. The first compares a nikon D800 with a Phase One IQ250. I found myself shaking my head and thinking, "Really?" as the writer explains considering a move to a medium format camera because he believes it will somehow give him better color and composition.
The second article comes from a 16 year old, self proclaimed, aspiring photographer from India. This kid uses a D5200 and reverse mounts his kit 18-55mm lens to capture excellent high magnification macro photos all while sticking a piece of paper in the end of the lens to maintain aperture.
I thought the latter's focus on using what was available, and capturing excellent photos in both composition and lighting while making no apologies for his equipment will prove him to be a far more successful photographer than the former in every aspect. What are your thoughts?
 
I might have to read the two articles to form an opinion.
 
The links to the articles are there in the OP if you care to read them.
 
shocking.
the $15k+ used phase one camera/digiback outperformed the used $2000 D800.

for his next trick, Mr. Paquette will use his incredible comparative skills to show us how a D7100 outperforms a Nikon 1.
 
However, he notes the color gains of the phase one are at least partially due to the phase one photo processing software! And honestly, I didn't come away from that article believing that the phase one (at least in the manner he was employing it) out performed the D800 at all. Hard to tell considering he used very different lenses for his unscientific test.

shocking.
the $15k+ used phase one camera/digiback outperformed the used $2000 D800.

for his next trick, Mr. Paquette will use his incredible comparative skills to show us how a D7100 outperforms a Nikon 1.
 
However, he notes the color gains of the phase one are at least partially due to the phase one photo processing software! And honestly, I didn't come away from that article believing that the phase one (at least in the manner he was employing it) out performed the D800 at all. Hard to tell considering he used very different lenses for his unscientific test.

shocking.
the $15k+ used phase one camera/digiback outperformed the used $2000 D800.

for his next trick, Mr. Paquette will use his incredible comparative skills to show us how a D7100 outperforms a Nikon 1.

well, lenses aside...
he clearly stated that he couldn't use the same software to do both so...for me, that puts some legitimate doubt to his results. plus, he used flash for some, but not for others as he attributed the cooler colors to his different uses of flash and reflectors.

his test was flawed from the minute he drug those cameras outside and used them to shoot different subjects in different areas. it would have been a much more accurate test done in a studio in a controlled environment.

but again, aside from completely skewed results, what did this test actually prove? anything? other than the fact that he obviously had no clue whatsoever how to do a side by side comparison of cameras?
honestly, I wouldnt be so critical of the article if the guy hadnt written it like a textbook entry using his photos as empirical proof that the phase one took better pictures, even though he used the most UN-scientific method possible.

a quick google search easily shows some actual comparisons of phase one vs d800's.
Nikon D800 vs medium format quality Cameralabs
Someone had to do it - The GetDPI Photography Forums
 
......Meanwhile, the second article shows a kid with a D5200 and kit lens taking better photos than the guy with the phase one and 50mp digiback.

go figure
 
I guess it all depends on what you'd consider successful. The guy in the second article definitely focused more on finding a way to get the image he was looking for despite the lack of more expensive gear. He talked about composition, settings, techniques for shooting with that shallow depth of field and post processing. Although, I don't think it's a fair comparison since the first guy was only trying to compare two cameras together, albeit not very well.

I wouldn't say, based on those two articles, that one will end up more successful than the other. Of course, I much preferred the macro shots over the shots from the other article. Granted, there are plenty of "successful" photographers whose work I'm not a fan of.
 
images failing to load.jpg


^^^^^^^^ I wanted to see the kid's pictures, but none of the images would load...but I do not doubt he was able to outshoot the first guy...the first guy is the one that lead off with a low-light shot done at f/2.8 at ISO 400, at 1/5 second...and then said he maybe coulda-shoulda-oughtta have used a higher ISO...THAT alone told me how skilled this guy is... one FIFTH of a second on a person...and he wanted to use that as a comparison point for...anything? Uh....no, that alone is a boneheaded move. Dumb. It's not 1910...one-FIFTH of a second for a shot of a person? And THAT is going to be used as some part of a "sharpness" comparison? Come on! The uber-red skin tones on some of the shots were another issue. And the slow-speed sword "fighting" image. OMG...

I saw his article...D800, $3,999 Otus, then the 135 Otus, which as he said is the second-sharpest lens DxOMark has ever tested, you know, behind only the 85mm Otus...oh gawd, this is the measurebator supreme type of guy...he's not going to get better pictures with a medium format camera. But he WILL have bigger bragging rights on-line and among his buddies. Any guess what kind of car this guy drives? My money says it retails for $65,000K or so, at least.

The whole idea that medium format is so superior was really more of a film-era, grain-limited concept, but only on slow-moving subjects and with good lighting conditions. Medium format FILM was always better than 35mm film, and 4x5 sheet film was better than MF rollfilm--as long as the subject was not moving, and perfect focus was achieved.

As to the thought processes...I thought the Luminous Landscape and Ming Thein reviews of the new Pentax MF digital were pretty much good points of view: those MF cameras have very high technical image quality (except the video, which is shi+++++y!) and the ISO range on the new PENTAX 645 digital is exceptional, but the shot discipline needed (tripod, mirror pre-release, electronic cable release, super-accurate focusing, a slow and thorough approach) for the MF systems negates the picture-taking ease and the flexibility that the smaller, lighter, better AF d-slr models offer now. The idea that medium format was "better" than 35mm film also assumed a very skilled professional-level shooter, and static or semi-static subject matter, like posing brides, or people in-studio, and so on. If you've actually used manual focus medium format gear, you know it's not all it;s cracked up to be once you get into fast-moving subjects, like people walking and stuff...
 
Derrel, too bad you couldn't see the images, I was amazed they came through that 18-55 lens!
The guy from the first article just seems to epitomize what's wrong with photography these days with the idea that gear trumps artistic ability and photographic understanding.
DigitalRevTV does a fun series where they pair a pro photographer with a cheap camera and I'm always impressed by the result. Here's one where they gave Lara Jade a .3mp toy camera and she actually captured some visually appealing shots.
 
I want a Phase1 with a 18-55 Kit lens :)

I like the one guys very long disclaimer which included "This is not meant to be a definitive scientific test"
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top